I am very new to JAVAFX. I just started looking at how to store user files and in my case I don't want to use XML. I am creating a new version of a tool that in the past was done in perl. The user files were text based, and were done with a proprietary definition.
As an example
PROJECT_NAME some_device;
DATA_BUS_WIDTH 32;
LINE_TYPE_A name_A mask:0xFFFFFFFF default:0x00000000 "Some documentation about this line type
SUB_LINE_TYPE_A_0 sub_name_0 PROP0 "Some documentation about what the sub line does";
SUB_LINE_TYPE_A_1 sub_name_1 PROP0 "Some documentation about what the sub line does";
LINE_TYPE_B name_B PROP_2 Size:0x1000 "Some documentation about this line type - important Linetype B has different properties than the previous line type A"
SUB_LINE_TYPE_B_0 sub_name_0 "Some documentation about what the sub line does";
LINE_TYPE_C name_C Other PROPs "And more documentation"
What I am thinking about doing is creating a document class, and then creating an array, that would hold each of the lines. But the rub is that the document class would hold an array of objects where there are three (or even more) types of objects. A LINE_TYPE_A, LINE_TYPE_B, etc.. objects, where there are different properties for each type. I am familiar with creating an array of One type of object. Creating an array of multiple types, seems odd to me, but it seems like there should be a way. As I rolled through the list, I would have to be able to look at each item and say, you're a TYPE A or your a TYPE C, so I could work with the data appropriately.
Is this the right thing to do to create a custom document format? Or is there something else I should be doing? Again, though, I do want to stay away from XML.
There are a few ways you can go about structuring this:
A) Define a data structure, say DataLine, to hold your data. It would contain all the information in a particular line: TYPE, name, etc. Then continue with what you wanted to do:
class Document {
//array or list or some other collection type of `DataLine`
DataLine[] lines;
void doStuff() {
for (DataLine line : lines) {
// line.getType(), line.getName(), etc
}
}
}
B) Define an inheritance based structure that would isolate common fields / query methods, e.g.
// abstract class if you have some common methods or interface
abstract class DataLine {
abstract DataType getType();
}
// some specific data that belongs to only TypeA
class DataLineTypeA extends / implements DataLine {
}
class Document {
//array or list or some other collection type of `DataLine`
DataLine[] lines;
void doStuff() {
for (DataLine line : lines) {
// can also check with getType() if you have it stored
if (line instanceof DataLineTypeA) {
DataLineTypeA typeA = (DataLineTypeA) line;
// do stuff with typeA specific methods
}
// etc.
}
}
}
Finally, you either create your own data parser if you have a formal definition of your data, or use an intermediate format like JSON. Alternatively, you can make data persistent by using the default Java serialization mechanism.
Related
In Vaadin 8 Framework, and Vaadin 10 Flow, the data-binding capability lets us provide a Converter to mediate between the widget’s expected data type (such as String for a TextField) and the data type of the backing bean property (such as Integer number).
In this example, the built-in Converter implementation StringToIntegerConverter is used.
binder
.forField( this.phaseField )
.withConverter(
new StringToIntegerConverter( "Must enter an integer number" )
)
.bind( Panel::getPhase , Panel::setPhase ) ;
But what about defining a Converter for other types? How can I easily define a short-and-sweet Converter? For example, a String-to-UUID converter. I want to show the canonical 36-character hex string in a TextField, and going the other direction, parse that string back into a UUID.
// String to UUID
UUID uuid = UUID.fromString( myString ) ;
// UUID to String
String myString = uuid.toString() ;
I see that Binder.BindingBuilder offers the pair of methods withConverter that both take a pair of SerializableFunction objects.
Binder.BindingBuilder::withConverter(SerializableFunction<TARGET,NEWTARGET> toModel, SerializableFunction<NEWTARGET,TARGET> toPresentation)
Binder.BindingBuilder::withConverter(SerializableFunction<TARGET,NEWTARGET> toModel, SerializableFunction<NEWTARGET,TARGET> toPresentation, String errorMessage)
➥ So how do I define the pair of SerializableFunction objects/classes?
I noticed that this interface lists a known subinterface ValueProvider<SOURCE,TARGET>. That looks familiar, and I have a hunch it is the key to easily defining a short simple converter. But I do not quite comprehend the syntax with lambdas and all that is going on here.
I am not asking how to write a class implementing Converter. I am asking how to write the pair of SerializableFunction arguments to pass to the Binder.BindingBuilder::withConverter methods listed above as bullet items.
Quoting that JavaDoc:
Interface Binder.BindingBuilder<BEAN,TARGET>
…
withConverter
default <NEWTARGET> Binder.BindingBuilder<BEAN,NEWTARGET> withConverter(SerializableFunction<TARGET,NEWTARGET> toModel, SerializableFunction<NEWTARGET,TARGET> toPresentation)
Maps the binding to another data type using the mapping functions and a possible exception as the error message.
The mapping functions are used to convert between a presentation type, which must match the current target data type of the binding, and a model type, which can be any data type and becomes the new target type of the binding. When invoking bind(ValueProvider, Setter), the target type of the binding must match the getter/setter types.
For instance, a TextField can be bound to an integer-typed property using appropriate functions such as: withConverter(Integer::valueOf, String::valueOf);
Type Parameters:
NEWTARGET - the type to convert to
Parameters:
toModel - the function which can convert from the old target type to the new target type
toPresentation - the function which can convert from the new target type to the old target type
Returns:
a new binding with the appropriate type
Throws:
IllegalStateException - if bind has already been called
You can do it by passing two lambda expressions to withConverter, so something like this:
binder.forField(textField)
.withConverter(text -> UUID.fromString(text), uuid -> uuid.toString())
.bind(/* ... */);
If you need a more complicated conversion, then the right-hand side of the lambda can be surrounded with brackets, e.g.
binder.forField(textField).withConverter( text -> {
if ( text == null ) {
return something;
} else {
return somethingElse;
}
}, uuid -> { return uuid.toString(); } )
.bind(/* ... */);
If you need your converter multiple times, I recommend creating a separate class implementing interface com.vaadin.data.Converter. However, using lambdas is possible, too, as you already know (see answer of #ollitietavainen). But this is not Vaadin specific, it's a Java 8+ feature you can read about e.g. here. Basically, you can use lambdas whereever an object implementing an interface with only one method is required.
In Java, it turns out that field accessors get cached, and using accessors has side-effects. For example:
class A {
private static final int FOO = 5;
}
Field f = A.class.getDeclaredField("FOO");
f.setAccessible(true);
f.getInt(null); // succeeds
Field mf = Field.class.getDeclaredField("modifiers" );
mf.setAccessible(true);
f = A.class.getDeclaredField("FOO");
f.setAccessible(true);
mf.setInt(f, f.getModifiers() & ~Modifier.FINAL);
f.setInt(null, 6); // fails
whereas
class A {
private static final int FOO = 5;
}
Field mf = Field.class.getDeclaredField("modifiers" );
mf.setAccessible(true);
f = A.class.getDeclaredField("FOO");
f.setAccessible(true);
mf.setInt(f, f.getModifiers() & ~Modifier.FINAL);
f.setInt(null, 6); // succeeds
Here's the relevant bit of the stack trace for the failure:
java.lang.IllegalAccessException: Can not set static final int field A.FOO to (int)6
at sun.reflect.UnsafeFieldAccessorImpl.throwFinalFieldIllegalAccessException(UnsafeFieldAccessorImpl.java:76)
at sun.reflect.UnsafeFieldAccessorImpl.throwFinalFieldIllegalAccessException(UnsafeFieldAccessorImpl.java:100)
at sun.reflect.UnsafeQualifiedStaticIntegerFieldAccessorImpl.setInt(UnsafeQualifiedStaticIntegerFieldAccessorImpl.java:129)
at java.lang.reflect.Field.setInt(Field.java:949)
These two reflective accesses are of course happening in very different parts of my code base, and I don't really want to change the first to fix the second. Is there any way to change the second reflective access to ensure it succeeds in both cases?
I tried looking at the Field object, and it doesn't have any methods that seem like they would help. In the debugger, I noticed overrideFieldAccessor is set on the second Field returned in the first example and doesn't see the changes to the modifiers. I'm not sure what to do about it, though.
If it makes a difference, I'm using openjdk-8.
If you want the modifier hack (don't forget it is a total hack) to work, you need to change the modifiers private field before the first time you access the field.
So, before you do f.getInt(null);, you need to do:
mf.setInt(f, f.getModifiers() & ~Modifier.FINAL);
The reason is that only one internal FieldAccessor object is created for each field of a class (*), no matter how many different actual java.lang.reflect.Field objects you have. And the check for the final modifier is done once when it constructs the FieldAccessor implementation in the UnsafeFieldAccessorFactory.
When it is determined you can't access final static fields (because, the setAccessible override doesn't works but non-static final fields, but not for static final fields), it will keep failing for every subsequent reflection, even through a different Field object, because it keeps using the same FieldAccessor.
(*) barring synchronization issues; as the source code for Field mentions in a comment:
// NOTE that there is no synchronization used here. It is correct
(though not efficient) to generate more than one FieldAccessor for a
given Field.
I have a plain textfield in Tridion that can have multiple values. The itemtype is a SingleLineTextField.
In the TBB code I have the following (removed the non-essential parts):
ItemFields itemFields = new ItemFields(folder.Metadata, folder.MetadataSchema);
foreach (ItemField itemField in itemFields)
{
string itemFieldValue = string.Empty;
switch (Utilities.GetFieldType(itemField))
{
case FieldType.SingleLineTextField:
itemFieldValue = itemField.ToString();
break;
}
}
Now the result in case of two entries is just two strings with a character line break in it.
String A
String B
The method used is a generic one, which also works on other fields, so I was looking for some way to find out if a SingleLineTextField has more values in it.
You can cast the field to a SingleLineTextField type, then iterate through the Values collection, something along these lines:
SingleLineTextField field = (SingleLineTextField)itemField;
foreach(string value in field.Values)
{
// do something with value
}
// or if all you want is the count of values
int i = field.Values.Count;
Firstly, I would advise against relying on the ToString() method on objects unless it is specifically documented. In this case it works with the abstract class ItemField, but this may not always be the case.
The TOM.Net API only defines Definition and Name properties for ItemField, so you need to cast your ItemField object to something more specific.
the TextField abstract class, which SingleLineTextField inherits from, defines a ToString() method, but also Value and Values properties, which are much better suited to what you're trying to do. Looking at the documentation, we can see that Values will give us an IList<String> of the values, even if your field is not multi-valued. Perfect!
So, to answer your question, "I was looking for some way to find out if a SingleLineTextField has more values in it", you need to cast your ItemField as a TextField and check the number of Values it provides, thus:
TextField textField = (TextField)itemField;
// If you need to deal with multi-valued fields separately
if (textField.Values.Count > 1)
{
//Logic to deal with multiple values goes here
}
else
{
//Logic to deal with single valued goes here
}
// Much better... If you can deal with any number of values in a generic fashion
foreach (string value in textField.Values)
{
// Generic code goes here
}
I have broadly two different classes of data caching requirements based on data size:
1) very small data (2-30 characters) – this includes such things as the type code for a given entityId. The system is based upon the concept of parent-child entity hierarchy and actions are authorized against values that are built in combination with entity type code. Caching these type codes for different entities saves time on db fetch.
2) medium/Large data – This is general data like products description and pages.
I'm confused as to which approach is better suited for first class of data.
I can cache it like this:
HttpRuntime.Cache.Insert("typeCode" + entityId, entityTypeCode);
or like this:
Dictionary<int, string> etCodes =
(Dictionary<int, string>)HttpRuntime.Cache["typeCode"];
etCodes[entityId] = entityTypeCode;
Clearly, In the second approach, I'm saving on unnecessary cache items for each entityId.
or, having Cache object populated with several items of such small size is okay.
Which of these approachs is good in terms of performance and overhead?
Personally I would take your second approach of one single object and use a custom object instead of a Dictionary.
This would enable me to later control more aspects like expiration of items within the object or changing the implementation.
I would do it similar to this:
public class MyCacheObject
{
public static MyCacheObject
{
get
{
// ...Omitted locking here for simplification...
var o = HttpRuntime.Cache["MyCacheObject] as MyCacheObject;
if ( o = null )
{
o = new MyCacheObject();
HttpRuntime.Cache["MyCacheObject] = o;
}
return o;
}
}
public object GetEntity( string id, string code )
{
// ...
}
public void SetEntity( object entity, string id, string code )
{
// ...
}
// ...
}
If you have a custome base class for the entities, the GetEntity and SetEntity methods could be optimized further.
Is there a way to bind data to a list and/or a table using the groovy swing builder bind syntax? I could only find simple examples that bind simple properties like strings and numbers to a text field, label, or button text.
Had a look round, and the best I could see was using GlazedLists rather than standard Swing lists
http://www.jroller.com/aalmiray/entry/glazedlists_groovy_not_your_regular
There is a GlazedList plugin. And this article is very helpful. The Griffon guys swear by GlazedLists.
I just did something like this--it's really not that hard to do manually. It's still a work in progress, but if it helps anyone I can give what I have. So far it binds the data in both directions (Updating the data updates the component, editing the table updates the data and sends a notification to any propertyChangeListeners of the "Row")
I used a class to define one row of a table. You create this class to define the nature of your table. It looks something like this:
class Row
{
// allows the table to listen for changes and user code to see when the table is edited
#Bindable
// The name at the top of the column
#PropName("Col 1")
String c1
#Bindable
// In the annotation I set the default editable to "false", here I'll make c2 editable.
// This annotation can (and should) be expanded to define more column properties.
#PropName(value="Col 2", editable=true)
String c2
}
Note that once the rest of the code is packaged up in a class, this "Row" class is the ONLY thing that needs to be created to create a new table. You create instances of this class for each row, add them to the table and you are completely done--no other gui work aside from getting the table into a frame.
This class could include quite a bit more code--I intend to have it contain a thread that polls a database and updates the bound properties, then the table should pick up the changes instantly.
In order to provide custom column properties I defined an annotation that looks like this (I plan to add more):
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target(ElementType.FIELD)
public #interface PropName {
String value();
boolean editable() default false
}
The rest is a class that builds the table. I keep it in a separate class so it can be reused (by instantiating it with a different "Row" class)
NOTE: I butchered this as I pasted it in so it may not run without a little work (braces probably). It used to include a frame which I removed to just include the table. You need to wrap the table returned from getTable() in a frame..
public class AutoTable<T>
{
SwingBuilder builder // This way external code can access the table
def values=[] // holds the "Row" objects
PropertyChangeListener listener={repaint()} as PropertyChangeListener
def AutoTable(Class<T> clazz)
{
builder = new SwingBuilder()
builder.build{
table(id:'table') {
tableModel(id:'tableModel') {
clazz.declaredFields.findAll{
it.declaredAnnotations*.annotationType().contains(PropName.class)}.each {
def annotation=it.declaredAnnotations.find{it.annotationType()==PropName.class
}
String n=annotation.value()
propertyColumn(header:n, propertyName:it.name, editable:annotation.editable())
}
}
tableModel.rowsModel.value=values
}
}
// Use this to get the table so it can be inserted into a container
def getTable() {
return builder.table
}
def add(T o) {
values.add(o)
o.addPropertyChangeListener(listener)
}
def remove(T o) {
o.removePropertyChangeListener(listener)
values.remove(o)
}
def repaint() {
builder.doLater{
builder.table.repaint();
}
}
}
There is probably a way to do this without the add/remove by exposing a bindable list but it seemed like more work without a lot of benifit.
At some point I'll probably put the finished class up somewhere--if you have read this far and are still interested, reply in a comment and I'll be sure to do it sooner rather than later.